| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36878 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 21:41:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
In my mind, what often makes someone a villain is an assumption that everyone else must conform to what works for that individual.
Doesn't that include small children? 
That's disturbing, my dear hamster -- Are our parents villains because they teach us their worldview? Our school teachers? Not saying that they force theirs upon us (or, well, they do, but the degree of success varies), but they do go very far in shaping ours.
I don't think that's as far as Eytan was going, though. He's talking about villains as going against freedom of choice. But doesn't that presuppose "choice" as a kind of universal "good"?
I was just referring to the fact that many small children want everything to be their way. It's not a reflection on the parents, it's just the way very small children are. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 21:46:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I was just referring to the fact that many small children want everything to be their way. It's not a reflection on the parents, it's just the way very small children are.
Ah, I see.
Yes, that too.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 21:49:58
|
Maybe Obould is the new missing link from orcs to humans. As you pointed out, Erik, he is doing what any conqueror does/did. Can there be a 'heroic' conqueror? I don't think so, after all he conquers something, taking it by force. Obould did what, and this may probably sound strange, was meant for the orcs... he found a place in the world for his people and forced the world to accept that. Other 'evil' countries are around, and why the bloody hell shouldn't the orcs, as a sentient species, not have a part in it? Otherwise they are just soon-to-be-dead dungeon dressing.
On the conforming to one view or another... I am not sure there is a 'good' or an 'evil' side when it comes to conforming. In this regard the 'good' are as bad as the 'evil' dudes. If an evil dude tries to force his view onto others, the good guys come and force their (sword-)point of view onto him.
It's ironic, but without the bad guys the good guys weren't good guys anymore and all them heroes would be jobless... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
PaulSKemp
Forgotten Realms Author
808 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 22:32:26
|
Richard,
Agreed and an excellent point. But there might be an option other than despair/surrender/subjectivism, on the one hand, or purported objectivity drawn from divine authority on the other.
Plato's view was that there are, objectively, "things in themselves" called the Good, Justice, etc., all apprehendable through application of Reason. To the extent an action accorded with the Good or Justice, then the action was/is Good or Just, respectively. Time, place, culture, and the subjective beliefs of men, past or present, were and are irrelevant to the determination.
Let's assume that slavery of another human being is not in accord with Plato's Good. It is, therefore, an Evil. The argument that society condoned it in the past, that a majority supported it, or whatever else we choose to offer to make it understandable(the relativistic argument, which is the offspring of subjectivism) falls away. Slavery is, was, and ever will be objectively Evil.
In that sense, Plato's foundational principles aren't so much granted, or invented and agreed upon, as they are derived.
The position has it's weaknesses, I know, some obvious, some not, but it's my view that one needn't consider the only two options to be Sartre or the King James Bible (or some other holy writ).  |
Edited by - PaulSKemp on 17 Mar 2006 22:41:15 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 22:51:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by PaulSKemp
In that sense, Plato's foundational principles aren't so much granted, or invented and agreed upon, as they are derived.
If I'm remembering my Theory of Forms correctly (and please correct me if I'm not! I'm curious and this is a good thread of the discussion), basic, foundational principles do indeed exist (so there could be a "universal good"), and the way that people come to understand them is by derivation.
So they are "granted," just not in a transitive, "granted to humans" sense. More like "granted" in an intransitive, universal sense. Eh?
Socrates/Plato spent much of his time trying to come to an understanding of the Form of the Good, which is not directly comprehensible to humans (just as the ultimate forms of things are not comprehensible, i.e. the form of "Chair," or "Dog," or "Justice"). The best we can do is derive characteristics of it from observation of things that do align with it (justice, compassion, perhaps) and things that don't (slavery, etc.).
I don't really buy all of Plato, but I really, really like what he's got to say, and I fully appreciate him. After all, it can be well argued that the entirity of western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato's writings.
quote:
The position has it's weaknesses, I know, some obvious, some not, but it's my view that one needn't consider the only two options to be Sartre or the King James Bible (or some other holy writ).
Amen to that!
I'm of the position that multiple options are RIGHT, actually, not just valid / possible. But that's a whole other can.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 17 Mar 2006 22:54:46 |
|
|
|
PaulSKemp
Forgotten Realms Author
808 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 23:09:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
If I'm remembering my Theory of Forms correctly (and please correct me if I'm not! I'm curious and this is a good thread of the discussion), basic, foundational principles do indeed exist (so there could be a "universal good"), and the way that people come to understand them is by derivation.
So they are "granted," just not in a transitive, "granted to humans" sense. More like "granted" in an intransitive, universal sense. Eh?
Erik,
We're saying the same thing, just using different words. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean. I think. |
Edited by - PaulSKemp on 17 Mar 2006 23:10:02 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2006 : 23:13:20
|
I think so. I just wanted to make sure I was with ya.
Plato was a while ago for me.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 00:06:27
|
So yes, Obould essentially is a character that ironically is one that were it any other group than orcs (what is your problem with bold anyway?) then we'd probably feel a lot more sympathy for the character than we do.
His ambitions are hardly "turn the world into undead" or the like that we see in plenty of other stories. |
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 00:55:51
|
The weakness in Plato, I think--and this is not to slam him too brutally, since, as I mentioned previously, I think you can find weaknesses in every philosophy--is that it's not at all clear that essential Good, Justice, and whatever can truly be apprehended through the application of Reason. What demonstrates that this is indeed possible? And if you can't observe them, what's the evidence that they're really out there at all?
If these concepts were really more than ideas, if they were transcendent, cosmic "things in themselves," I think we humans might well achieve more consensus on moral issues than we in fact do. |
|
|
|
silvermage
Seeker
77 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 00:58:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
So yes, Obould essentially is a character that ironically is one that were it any other group than orcs (what is your problem with bold anyway?) then we'd probably feel a lot more sympathy for the character than we do.
His ambitions are hardly "turn the world into undead" or the like that we see in plenty of other stories.
Obould is more of a pretender and actor. In one hand, he rallies the orc hordes with words like "Vengeance", "Land", "Glory" and "Obould Is Gruumsh" and he doesn't care about the thousands of orcs he sacrificed for his campaign, merely shrugged it off as "acceptable losses" and the way he killed and commanded the killing of innocent unarmed and untrained and harmless civilians as well as the brutality of his strategy gives me an impression that he is not even one step above the Nazis and the Tuigan Horde. Feel Sympathy for Obould? Nope, I would rather sympathise those fallen Obould sacrificed for his personal ambitions.
quote:
His ambitions are hardly "turn the world into undead" or the like that we see in plenty of other stories.
I seriously doubt so, he claimed that the elves, humans and dwarves had been stealing the limelight from them and its time the orcs occupy the limelight. Obould on one hand speaks of "peace, trade and harmony" with the Silvaeren nations but if we carefully read in between his words, he knew no one would trade or make peace with orcs, so he intend to pressure the northern nations to "peace" with him through his hordes.
There is always a saying: "One hand offers the gifts that a person desires, the other hand takes away many things away from the person."
So Obould is offering so called "peace" on one hand, but the other hand he plans to take away many things from his victims such as prosperity, military superiority etc. and intends to make the other nations (be it whatever race except orcs) bow their heads to Obould and his Empire. He may be planning to "conquer" cities by squeezing them with sanctions and military pressure until the cities surrender to him to ease the pressure on them. This would certainly boost Obould's image to the orcs and make him more "Gruumsh" for taking over a city without bloodshed. So, Obould is comparable to Hitler who took over several nations without a fight.
I think all nations of Faerun should unite and conquer the orcs before they become a threat. Afterall, Obould is untrustworthy and near Cyric psycological state. |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 01:55:38
|
Frankly, when a people forced to live in utter misery turn back and attack with a vengeance. I have no sympathy for the people who forced them to live in such circumstances. Hitler? Yes, I'm reminded strongly of the Silver Marchers.
But they're both fictional. Of course Obould is evil. That's because he's an Orc and the villain. It doesn't mean that the unification of a people living in utter poverty and building for themselves a nation is something that doesn't have its upside.
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Sarta
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 02:34:54
|
Obould is interesting because he is intelligent enough to recognize that he and his kind are in an untenable situation. Orcs breed fast and they live in some of the worst regions of land in terms of acquiring food. Without doing something, they are destined to brutal and short lives of suffering. The only solution is to expand.
It may appear callous that he is willing to accept large orcish casualties, but on the other hand he also realizes that without the horde invading they would have likely been lost to infighting and starvation. Also their deaths reduce the burden of over-population for surviving orcs should their territory not expand.
He is in a similar situation as humans were hundreds of years ago when elves ruled most of Faerun... and his actions aren't too far out of line from the actions that some of those humans took back then.
Earlier Erik touched on basic human drives, but he left one out that I feel is significant, the drive that mankind feels to ensure that their children are protected, succeed, and perhaps have it a little better off than we, their parents, do. After all, evolutionary success is not just which individual has the most children, but which individual has the most children which survive to have even more grandchildren.
Obould definitely has strong paternal instincts. He wants to make certain his children succeed and live well (without them resorting to patricide). |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 05:06:33
|
| In response to Erik (even though I know he is just being philosophical), if we can't presuppose universal good, then by definition, there is no such thing as a verifiable villain. Most people write about villains using their own likes, dislikes, fears, and personal experiences as models for how a villain would act and think. These experiences, along with what we perceive in society, shape in our my minds pressupositions about good and evil. We have to presuppose that certain things are inherently good - freedom of choice, valuing life, truth, love, friendship, beauty - for their to be things that are inherently bad - tyranny, destruction, deceit, hatred, fear. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
Edited by - EytanBernstein on 18 Mar 2006 05:11:16 |
|
|
|
James P. Davis
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
244 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 07:34:51
|
quote:
On a strictly quality basis, WHITE trumps all colors, being an amalgamation of -- and thus superior to -- all other colors. Not to mention its incredible range of symbolic meaning. Q.E.D.
I don't know, I was an art major when I started college and when I mixed every color I got a reddish-brownish 'gloop'. That's it, 'gloop' is the color king.
But anyway, to comment on all that's been said and to continue that color idea (and I'll be the first to admit, I've never done an extensive study in philosophy): everything is gray. Good and evil exist as long as a sentient being is there to perceive them (in all their myriad forms). Take away the sentience of the universe, still get gray for the lack. To the outside truly objective observer (as if) there is only cause and effect, none of which changes the wheels of true reality one bit. It's a bleak view, not very poetic or deeply philosophical, but it's simple and honest.
Life and Death are just perceptions as well (though obviously more Life than Death, not many corpses staring at the coffin lid thinking, "Hey, neat!"). Whether Life is preferable to Death as a basis for happiness, well most logic might say, "Yeah, uh, me alive, me happy, no die!", but I feel one must use the terms 'most' and 'logic'. Some people are unhappy alive and want to die, not that they'd necessarily be happy dead, but they'd certainly no longer be unhappy alive. And logic is just that individual thing.
So yeah, gray covers it nicely for me. Symbolic for the eternal conception of an idea and the objection to it, two sides, two points of view, both right based on the perceptions of the opposing sides. Right or wrong, good or evil, the Comet of the Almighty Doombringer will destroy us all without prejudice. |
"Everybody is a book of blood; wherever we're opened, we're red."--Clive Barker
FR: RotD2:"Possessions"
Wizards:Bloodwalk
Citadels: The Shield of Weeping Ghosts
Wilds: The Restless Shore
Ed Greenwood Presents Waterdeep: Circle of Skulls (May 2010)
Book trailers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC-ska7ohVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfvFdQ8bLp0 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 09:45:15
|
Wow... James... although I took philosophy in college (at least on paper) I am not very familiar with the subject either, aside from the day to day musings one is bound to have when being.
I think you got it right, at least from my perspective. It's all 'gloop' or grey rather.
As for the universal good/evil idea... I don't know, this would lean toward saying that the result does not matter if you commit an 'evil' act it would still be evil no matter what your intentions. Which brings me full circle back to what I said earlier, you'd commit an evil act when you torture a criminal to find out where the abducted person is. Ironically enough if you killed an ill being because he is suffering so badly that every second of his life is pain it would still be evil although this act of mercy is meant as a good thing.
I'm not quite willing to accept that euthanasia is evil... so I go with grey.
Peace and love and all good happiness stuff |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
PaulSKemp
Forgotten Realms Author
808 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 12:31:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
The weakness in Plato, I think--and this is not to slam him too brutally, since, as I mentioned previously, I think you can find weaknesses in every philosophy--is that it's not at all clear that essential Good, Justice, and whatever can truly be apprehended through the application of Reason. What demonstrates that this is indeed possible? And if you can't observe them, what's the evidence that they're really out there at all?
If these concepts were really more than ideas, if they were transcendent, cosmic "things in themselves," I think we humans might well achieve more consensus on moral issues than we in fact do.
Interesting, but I don't think Plato would have any problem with a lack of consensus (if there is, in fact, a lack of consensus). After all, philosopher-kings are not born everyday.
The question of evidence is a fair one. Personally, I find it telling, and perhaps evidence of Plato's position, that all mankind has and does believe that actions have moral consequences -- they are just, good, evil, or whatever. Even sociopaths and tyrants try to frame thier actions as moral within whatever framework they've adopted. Man is an animal interested in morality and how his actions fit within the moral framework. While men often disagree on the standard to be applied, they agree that there is some standard. That underlies our entire discussion in this thread, after all. It is universal, and to me, very suggestive.
|
Edited by - PaulSKemp on 18 Mar 2006 12:32:13 |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 13:38:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by PaulSKemp
The question of evidence is a fair one. Personally, I find it telling, and perhaps evidence of Plato's position, that all mankind has and does believe that actions have moral consequences -- they are just, good, evil, or whatever. Even sociopaths and tyrants try to frame thier actions as moral within whatever framework they've adopted. Man is an animal interested in morality and how his actions fit within the moral framework. While men often disagree on the standard to be applied, they agree that there is some standard. That underlies our entire discussion in this thread, after all. It is universal, and to me, very suggestive.
I hardly want to interfere with this philosophy discussion since I very much enjoy it, but lemme try to put it back on track with a nod to the Realms.
Who is the moral authority? As James Lowder in Prince of Lies so aptly showed the gods are concepts and as such not a 'neutral' authority.
And what is the moral principle for Toril according to which everything strives? If it is balance then the villains deserve as much a chance as do the heroes. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 14:48:41
|
Paul: I think you offer perhaps as strong an argument for Plato's position as anyone could, but I just don't find it convincing.
Mace: You ask a good question to which I hope no one will ever supply a definitive answer. I think the FR will be a more interesting place to write and read about if the answers to deep philosophical questions remain as elusive as they are in the real world. This enhances our ability to have characters and situations that resonate with people and issues in our own lives. Which isn't always vital in fantasy, but can often be a plus. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 17:48:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
Paul: I think you offer perhaps as strong an argument for Plato's position as anyone could, but I just don't find it convincing.
Mace: You ask a good question to which I hope no one will ever supply a definitive answer. I think the FR will be a more interesting place to write and read about if the answers to deep philosophical questions remain as elusive as they are in the real world. This enhances our ability to have characters and situations that resonate with people and issues in our own lives. Which isn't always vital in fantasy, but can often be a plus.
Well... in that case... is there any chance we'll ever see a non-clichée successful villain, who does have believable reasons for the things he does.
At the bottom line you'll always have the good guys saving the day, how about some bad guy actually ruining the day for the good guys?
Nothing too sinister, just maybe that Azoun V becomes a follower of Bane or some other nice thing |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 20:14:29
|
Mace: Well,
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
evil basically wins at the end of War of the Spider Queen, doesn't it?
I hope we have some non-cliche villains already. As far as villains who win (other than in WotSQ), I don't know. It goes against the standard conventions of the fantasy adventure genre, and it's an open question how many readers would find such a story satisfying. We can jeer at genre conventions as mindless formula, but in fact, they exist for a reason, and the reason is that, executed properly, they tend to please the audience.
In The Black Bouquet, I tried to do a caper novel, in which the criminal hero is good only in the very limited sense that he's not as big an SOB as his rivals. That seems to have worked, but I have no idea whether WotC would let me push the envelope any further (except in Dissolution) or whether the majority of readers would dig it if I did. |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2006 : 20:22:27
|
quote:
Well... in that case... is there any chance we'll ever see a non-clichée successful villain, who does have believable reasons for the things he does.
At the bottom line you'll always have the good guys saving the day, how about some bad guy actually ruining the day for the good guys?
1. The Shades of 'Return of the Archwizards' more or less get everything they want except destroy all of Faerun. Everveska is utterly decimated while the Phaerimm (I know I didn't spell that right) have also been nearly destroyed....thus having two of their enemies nearly destroy one another. They also more or less have conquered the entirety of the great desert that is a massive piece of the country.
2. Malik I mentioned before.
3. Death of the Dragon utterly decimates Cormyr, which was the entire goal of the villain. Azoun is dead at the end of the novel, the country is in shambles, the heir is also dead, and most of the dread armies is crushed. It's certainly as good as Thrawn is.
4. Shandril is killed in book 3 of her trilogy, thus fulfilling the goal of Fzoul and the Red Wizards.
5. King Obould wins at the end of the Orcs trilogy doesn't he? He may have lost some troops and been humiliated by Drizzt but he's conquered a vast swath of territory hasn't he?
6. The War of the Spider Queen is again....victory for evil.
What's your problem with these? |
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
Edited by - Charles Phipps on 18 Mar 2006 20:24:21 |
|
|
|
silvermage
Seeker
77 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 01:40:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
Frankly, when a people forced to live in utter misery turn back and attack with a vengeance. I have no sympathy for the people who forced them to live in such circumstances. Hitler? Yes, I'm reminded strongly of the Silver Marchers.
But they're both fictional. Of course Obould is evil. That's because he's an Orc and the villain. It doesn't mean that the unification of a people living in utter poverty and building for themselves a nation is something that doesn't have its upside.
Let's examine how the orcs are living in poverty. Much is due to their traditional rivalries and short-sightedness as well as greed that put them in such situation. Secondly, nobody forced the orcs to live in poverty anyway. For the orcs were the first to cause much misery to the other races, evident by the lengthy Orcgate Wars, the wars against the invading orcs during Netheril time, the siege of early-Waterdeep by orc hordes, had resulted in the loss of thousands of innocents that had done nothing to aggrieve the orcs. So, these wrongfully attacked races had the mandate of righteous vengeance to attack and drive the orcs to ground.
Secondly, I agree that the orcs have the right to have a kingdom but the orcs plainly had nothing much worth to trade unless they know how to mine the valuable iron ore but I doubt anybody would buy from the orcs save evil organizations. If they cannot gain enough profits to sate their greediness, they will go to war. Also, few orcs would submit to lengthy dirty work like mining and digging tunnels, so they go and capture slaves from other races to do it. All the more why action must be taken against the orcs.
Also, Obould is a greedy orc, initially he thought of raiding settlements, then he thought of kicking Mithral Hall to the Abyss and attempt to put economic barricades on the Silvaeren nations to force them to accept the right of the orcs to have a kingdom. Well, this have a double edge to it, if Obould can force Alustriel and her Confederates to accept that, and that means Alustriel and her Confederates had indirectly and unknowingly agreed to accept that the orcs had the right to expand their borders and that means invading the Silver Marches and bowing their heads to Obould. Obould is smart and knows how to bend situations to his profit.
Also, Obould would likely to try to build an empire of orc rule so as to gloat over the elves and human empires. That means he is willing to spend every drop of orc blood for his empire dream to come true. All the more, this justifies the reasons that the orc kingdom of Obould must be suppressed with early pre-emptive strikes before more blood and destruction of innocent lives are lost, if Obould can turn a blind eye to the killing of innocents and stomach the losses, this all the more justify the need that Obould be removed and the orcs squashed and beaten to ashes. |
|
|
|
DrJackal
Acolyte
21 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 01:44:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
What I came up with was the idea that that evil equates to discontentment with the status quo. It gives rise to ambition, striving, Darwinian competition, and thus, ultimately, an improved world.
Drow are all Slytherins?
That's something that always bugged me about people ranting over how Cunningham "ruined" the drow. Even among a group in which ambition and getting ahead are the greatest good, there's going to be variation and personal limits. And there are limits: a commoner drow or a drow from a lesser noble family won't have the same opportunity to climb up the social ladder as their betters. Some will seethe in discontent; some will privately shrug their shoulders but keep an eye out for a chance to get one over on The Woman. |
"I was never on anyone's side in the first place, so how could I betray them?" -- Akabane Kuroudo.
"No man is a black magician in his own eyes." --- Richard Cavendish, The Black Arts |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 01:59:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
1. The Shades of 'Return of the Archwizards' more or less get everything they want except destroy all of Faerun. Everveska is utterly decimated while the Phaerimm (I know I didn't spell that right) have also been nearly destroyed....thus having two of their enemies nearly destroy one another. They also more or less have conquered the entirety of the great desert that is a massive piece of the country.
The Shades would be something I'd like to get to know more about. From reading the novels I only got the impression that they were a bunch of nasty fellows who'll do anything to further their ends. Much villainous potential there, but not what I am looking for (as far as Archwizards goes).
quote:
2. Malik I mentioned before.
Truth to be told I don't like the bumbling buffoon. He is Cyric's lapdog, not a real villain, rather a proxy.
quote:
3. Death of the Dragon utterly decimates Cormyr, which was the entire goal of the villain. Azoun is dead at the end of the novel, the country is in shambles, the heir is also dead, and most of the dread armies is crushed. It's certainly as good as Thrawn is.
I dunno. I liked the read but to say it was a victory for the villain, would be overstating it, from my point of view. The ensuing Chaos in Cormyr is the result of a bitterly fought war won, now the winners have to pick up the pieces. Cormyr isn't destroyed and, believe it or not, I am happy because I really like Cormyr. Now we have the chance to see some major rebuilding and such stuff. I like that story aspect very much
quote:
4. Shandril is killed in book 3 of her trilogy, thus fulfilling the goal of Fzoul and the Red Wizards.
Haven't read it yet, so I cannot comment.
quote:
5. King Obould wins at the end of the Orcs trilogy doesn't he? He may have lost some troops and been humiliated by Drizzt but he's conquered a vast swath of territory hasn't he?
I would LOVE to see more of him. His story is one that really does fascinate me. Maybe we'll actually get to see him with an entourage traveling to Silverymoon to open trade negotiation, now THAT would be worth 'watching'. Obould on par, up do his boots, negotiating with Alustriel.
quote:
6. The War of the Spider Queen is again....victory for evil.
Victory of evil? Over what? The quest was about finding out what happened to Lloth and that Chosen of hers. There was no real battle against good. The entire thing's bottom line was that the status quo was reinstated... damn good read and terrific characters, but the were all 'heroes' so to speak, in a drowish way. I hope we see more of Pharaun, he would make a good villain because he is so ironic and smart-assed. I could also see Halistra appearing again, Lolth's inquisitor, fun stuff...wonder how long she'd survive. In that regard Lolth proved truly chaotic, she didn't even give Halistra specific orders whom to kill and where, at least Cyric's inquisitors had an area to play in, Zhentil Keep, Halistra could show up anywhere where people despise Lolth and that might mean she's have to deal with Qilué. And her torment of knowing how majorly she screwed up... good stuff |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
DrJackal
Acolyte
21 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 02:00:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
And I don't think they should. Hell, even highly educated people shouldn't, IMO. It'd be a bit... eerie and surreal if they do. Who wakes up each morning and thinks "Hey, I'm LN, so I will act such and such"?
Way back in 1st Edition AD&D, there were alignment languages that your character automatically got to know. |
"I was never on anyone's side in the first place, so how could I betray them?" -- Akabane Kuroudo.
"No man is a black magician in his own eyes." --- Richard Cavendish, The Black Arts |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 09:49:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrJackal
quote:
Originally posted by Winterfox
And I don't think they should. Hell, even highly educated people shouldn't, IMO. It'd be a bit... eerie and surreal if they do. Who wakes up each morning and thinks "Hey, I'm LN, so I will act such and such"?
Way back in 1st Edition AD&D, there were alignment languages that your character automatically got to know.
First edition, the way I perceive it, was still very much a tactical game... maybe I am wrong |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Richard Lee Byers
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
1814 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 14:29:18
|
| 1st Edition obviously didn't have a lot of the bells and whistles that came later, but I've played every edition of D&D and a number of other RPGs also, and it's my opinion that the balance of roleplaying vs. wargaming that emerges from any given campaign is always more a matter of the inclinations of the GM and players than of the rules. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 17:32:14
|
| Funnily enough in the 2 decades of poleplaying the few solely wargaming sessions I played, I also didn't enjoy, since Wargaming in an RPG the way I experienced it was basically hack'n'slay. Very unimaginative...IMO |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Charles Phipps
Master of Realmslore
1425 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 18:38:15
|
I liked alignment languages. At heart, it was about establishing the Bond between evil transcended petty differences and they were all united in their cause against good.
It was different than most games but certainly a great idea.
|
My Blog: http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36878 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2006 : 19:18:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Phipps
I liked alignment languages. At heart, it was about establishing the Bond between evil transcended petty differences and they were all united in their cause against good.
It was different than most games but certainly a great idea.
I couldn't stand the idea, myself. You know a language automatically because of your outlook on life? Nope, does not compute for the hamster. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Villains in Novels
